DISTRICT COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1257, 24 January 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, GISBORNE.

Yesterday. [Before His Honor Judge Seth Smith.] Civit, Cases. In the case of Mullooly v. Puki te Auauo,claim for £199 4s, for goods sold and delivered, after the plaintiff had been sworn he could not swear as to the correctness of the accounts, so the plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, £l3 4s, This Day. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10.30 a.m. E. P. Joyce v. Kinross & Graham. The claim was for £139 5s for dishonored promissory note, given by Duncan Fraser, one of the late partners in Graham, Kinross and Fraser. Mr Kenny, with him Mr Finn, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Braesey for the defendant. Mr Kenny having opened the case in a very elaborate speech, called as his first witness— E. P. Joyce : I am a hotel keeper in Gisborne, and am plaintiff in this action. Pitau signed the bill produced, and the stamps were put on at the time. The bill was given for stores. I was told by Fraser to give Pitau the stores, as the money could be stopped out of the rent. About a month after the bill was signed, I presented the bill to Fraser, who told me Pitau was heavily indebted to the station. I saw Fraser about a month afterwards, and he gave me a similar reply. I saw Mr. Graham about five months afterwards, and I mentioned the matter to him. Hr told me to hold it over for a time. I saw Fraser again, and he told me that the firm was now at variance, and I would have to wait for a while. I saw Mr Graham again, and he said he had no doubt the money was owing. I saw Goudy before and atter the acceptance of the bill, and he said everything must oe held over until the variance was over between the partners. Mr Graham said he had no objection to pay if Goudy was agreeable. I spoke to Goudy after the bankruptcy,and be told me to wait until the arbitration was settled. Mr Goudy on one oecasion|said that if the amount reduced by one half he would pay it. The bill has never been paid. I told Mr Graham what Goudy had said, and the former told me that he wished it settled before going to Court. I never received the money out of the bankrupts estate.

Cross-examined by Mu Braesey: I spoke to Goudy before the bill was accepted] Mr Graham never told me that he had nothing to do with it. Goudy said he would see about it when I spoke to him. Goudy never said he would have nothing to do with it. Goudy told me he would pay it if I reduced it to half. I interpreted the bill when the Native signed it. I believe there was a dispute between the firm when the bill was accepted. I wrote the date on the bill at the same time it was accepted. Duncan Fraser called : I am a sheep farmer in-Poverty Bay. The bill produced bears my signature on the back. I was then in partnership with Kinross. Pitau was one of the Natives from whom I rented the station. There was rent due to Pitau on the day I signed the acceptance. Plaintiff mentioned the bill to me several times. He showed me the bill at the Big River. I asked him to let it stand. As differences had arisen I thought it better to settle with Joyce. I told Joyce to let Pitau have the goods, and Pitau was one of the landlords of the station. All my sheep farming business was on account of the firm. Mr Graham and Mr Kinross were my partners. Latterly Mr Goudy was acting for Mr Kinross. Ultimately there was a disagreement in the partnership of Messrs Graham, Kinross, and myself. Mr Goudy represented Mr Kinross. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey :—I did did not sign the acceptance after I was adjudicated a bankrupt Messrs Graham and Kinross brought an action against me to dissolve the partnership. I think I accepted the bill before I went to Wellington. At the time the bill was given by Pitau he was indebted to the firm.

Andrew Graham, called ; I am a merchant in Gisborne. I was in partnership in 1877 with Fraser and Kinross. 1 know Pitau who was one of the landlords. I know plaintiff. The bill produced was not presented to me for acceptance or payment. He showed it to me. I saw plaintiff several times before the bankruptcy of Fraser, and he spoke to me about the bill. I told plaintiff that if the goods were supplied to the station I was afraid we would have to pay it. I also said that I thought it was a very hard case. I also said that if Fraser had committed us and accepted the bill then I considered we would have to pay it. I referred plaintiff to Mr Goudy as liquidator. I told plaintiff that the matter was left in Goudy’s hands and that I would rather pay it than go to law.

Cross-examined by Mr Brassey : Fraser kept an account current with Pitau, and about December, 1880, Pitau owed the firm about £BOO. Fraser was never authorised by us to accept bills of this description. By Mr Kenny : 3’he firm was carried on in the name Duncan Fraser. The £4OO owing to Pitau was for advances in goods and cash made by Fi’aser to him.

The record of the bankruptcy proceedings in October, 1881, was admitted by Mr Brassey. Mr Brassey said that he would call no evidence.

Mr Kenny then addressed the Court on behalf of the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the learned counsel’s address the Court was adjourned until 2 o’clock. On resuming at 2 o’clock, Mr Brassey addressed the Court on behalf of the defendants, in a very lengthy speech.

His Honor reserved judgment untfl tomorrow morning. Mult-ooly y. Jury.

His Honor then delivered judgment in the case of Mullooly v. Jury, heard yesterday. His Honor gave his decision to the effect that the cause be struck out, with costs £9 Is.

The case of M. Mullooly v. S. M. Wilson, claim for detinue £25, was adjourned to the next sitting of the Court. The Court was then adjourned until Friday next, at half-past ten o’clock a.m.